Redact a file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral facts: the original is never modified, the redacted copy is written to disk, and the path is returned. It does not cover overwrite or output-naming behavior, but the core side-effect profile is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loads the action and scope, and each clause adds information (data types, input format, side effect, original-file safety, return value). No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It covers the main invocation context and the output, but the meaning of overwrite and output_path when null/true is left ambiguous. Since the schema provides no param descriptions and there are no annotations, an agent may not know how to set these fields correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain path, overwrite, and output_path. It only indirectly relates to 'local file' and 'returns the path'; it never explains how overwrite or output_path behave. This leaves parameter semantics largely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Redact') and resource ('local file'), enumerates target data types (PII, PHI, PCI, secrets) and file formats (image, PDF, scan, text), and specifies the write-to-disk behavior. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like detect_sensitive_data and redact_text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly frames the tool for redacting content out of a local file, giving a clear context of use. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the local-file qualifier makes the intended use obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.